Andreas, I think somehow I missed your reply to my question or else did not read it as carefully as I should have. I now realize I also missed completely the nature of the disagreements voiced on the first hyperlink.

I have now given both a more careful reading, though I confess that I did not read and ponder every exchange and citation. I am not sure I can judge most of the technical issues discussed, but would like to ask a question. What exactly do you believe to be the relationship between Chan Si Jing and Peng Jing? Is Chan Si Jing a specific application of Peng Jing, is it a parallel Jing, or is Peng Jing a specific application of Chan Si Jing?

I ask my question because I have often read comments of Chen practitioners (mostly in T’ai Chi magazine) describing Chan Si Jin as the basic and essential idea of “Taijiquan.” On the other hand, I have heard no lineage practitioners of other styles talk this way and have never been sure how to reconcile the discrepancy. Any ideas?

Psalchemist,

I was once told in casual conversation that Fajing and Huajing could be thought of as opposites. I had difficulty understanding the meaning of what was being conveyed, but this is what I decided to make of the information. As an opponent puts forth strength or Jin against you have the choice of trying to transform this Jin into nothing or of trying to use the combined Jin in both your bodies to push out or injure the opponent. The first is what I understand as “Hua” (“Neutralizing”/”Dissolving”/”transforming”). The second is what I understand as “Fa” (“Emiting”/”issuing”). As I understand it, one is never compelled to Fajing and even if one does, should have choice as to how much force is actually applied to the opponent.

Martial arts are as alive or as death as the practitionr makes them. Fah Jing, jusst like any other expression of power, is just a method, It teches us to behave in a certaing way. But the method itself will not limit you to have you use it just in specific situations dictated by the methos itself. Instead, it provides you with an open aproach so you can decide, according to you undersanding and personal needs, apply in in any situations.

when to fah jin? When to kick or puch? whan to grapple? when to run away and not fight?

It all deppends on the situation you're in. Thats why Taiji teches us to be pliable and soft, therefore able to adapt to any situation, even if we dont know its nature before hand.

Thanks for providing your knowlegde and opinions on the matter of when to use Fahjin.I was seeking ultimately to know whether or not one is forced to Fahjin if "supplied" with explosive energies from an opponent...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Audi:<B>Hi all,I have now given both a more careful reading, though I confess that I did not read and ponder every exchange and citation. I am not sure I can judge most of the technical issues discussed, but would like to ask a question. What exactly do you believe to be the relationship between Chan Si Jing and Peng Jing? Is Chan Si Jing a specific application of Peng Jing, is it a parallel Jing, or is Peng Jing a specific application of Chan Si Jing?

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Audi,I'd say Pengjin is the core and Chansi Jin is moving in spirals with Pengjin. I'd also say if you do your movements with dantian rotation and pengjin, you can't help but arrive at chansi jin.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Audi:<B>Hi all, As I understand it, one is never compelled to Fajing and even if one does, should have choice as to how much force is actually applied to the opponent.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Audi,

I think you have to be Chen Fake or Yang Luchan to win a fight only with neutralizing ) Most of us would have to do real damage to cope with a real serious assault.

Andreas Graf,This is not true. I have "neutralized" my way out of more than one impending fight. Usually, after a couple of completely ineffectual jabs or punches on your opponents part, he figures out he's not doing anything worthwhile and will give up. I have employed this technique against people who were only slightly aggravated at me, and against whom I wished no real harm so they were not "true" opponents. However, a true opponent could, I believe, be effectively neutralized until the fight could be considered "won". Against some more aggressive opponents, you could sometimes give a more aggressive response before they withdraw, however, to shorten your time under their influence.However, you do not need to have the abilities of a Yang Lu Chan to effectively control an opponent through neutralization, you merely need more skill at neutralization than they posses at aggressiveness. Since most opponents will be unschooled in martial arts, this should not be a "rare" occurence to anyone.

As for Fajing and when you use it...First look to your foundation (root) and then your principles. Only when you are able to employ these correctly will you be able to effectively fajing. Until then, you have no jing to fa, so what would be the use?When you have found the ability to move your whole body as one unit effectively, the jing will fa on its own. Those who can fajing will do so when it's necessary with no further thought of it. For those who cannot, there is no way to answer the question that they will understand.

Thanks for the commentary. Do you think that Dantian rotation is a Yang Style requirement; and, if so, can you sight any references that I could research?

Is Dantian rotation taught by any of the other main styles?

Take care,Audi</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Audi,

I haven't been exposed to high-level Yang-Style, so I can't really make any comments on it. Gu Liuxin wrote a section in his book (IIRC, citing from my mind), where he says that Yang-Style only does vertical/frontal rotation and Chen does sideways rotation too .

One of last years issue's of Wulin had an article by a Wu stylist of rotations in all directions, if memory serves right.

Dantian rotation is very visible in bona fide Chen-stylists, if they are inclined to show it. The rotation can also be very small and is then difficult to see from the outside.

Since P hasn't chimed in here, I'll do my best. I'm not certain I'm understanding the question however, and before I make an unmitigated ass out of myself, once again, by comparing apples to oranges I will need some clarification as to the meaning of the question.What exactly do you mean by "rotational turning of the tantien"?

I will make a preliminary answer, but I'll toss in a caveat to boot:First off, I am REALLY weak in Yang style theory, though I have been reading quite heavily, studying hard and working diligently to correct that problem. I've only been studying YCF's forms for a little over two years, so I'm not an expert by any stretch on tantien rotation in their forms. All I know at this point is what I've been shown by my instructor, there may be, in fact I feel 100% certain there is, a whole world of training beyond anything I've seen so far. I feel confident that Yang Zhenduo, Yang Zhenji, Yang Zhenguo, Yang Jun or any one of their family members or disciples could show me things of the Yang style that would make my head spin with envy. So I can only answer these types of questions in the context of what I know so far, not on what is actually in the advanced training of the Yang family. Second off, I am nearly as weak, if not more so at this point, in Wu style "theory". My strength in Wu family style TCC seems to be in my body, not my brain. I was taught how to physically do their forms and use their applications, however the "spoken" or "written" theory wasn't as heavily taught in their sytle, at least not to me by my Sifu's. Most of what I know of Wu style I could show you easily, but have no real idea how to convey those things to anyone else by spoken word alone.In other words, when I learned their transmission I learned by watching and repeating, "Let me show you" instead of "Let me tell you". I watched what Sifu (in this case I use the word to denote all of my former teachers at WTCCA, not just Eddie or his family, we used that word mostly for Eddies disciples, but it can mean anyone who is teaching, some people still call me Sifu) did, I would then try to follow his movements, with his corrections, until he was satisfied I was performing correctly, then I practiced that way until either I was doing it correctly, or he would correct me some more and I would then work on doing things more correctly. I have gotten myself in trouble here before, also, because of the above mentioned apples and oranges. What I "know" to be true in Wu style is usually true in Yang style, but not always AND even if it is it's called something different. So the explanations won't have a common base denominator to build from.

All that said:MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION on this, as I understand the question and according to what I know of both styles so far, would be that there is less of a range in directional turning of the tantien in Yang Cheng Fu style TCC, as I have learned it to this point, than there was in the Wu style as far I learned their transmission, which was considerably more than I've learned of Yang Cheng Fu style.

If I'm understanding your question, you've lead me in a circle right back to the question of the Wu families use of "leaning" in thier postures. I really, really don't know if we want to open that can of worms again on this Forum.The Yang Cheng Fu stylists of the world don't "lean". In thier system this is correct and proper and I will not speak against it further until I obtain a higher level of understanding of the concept.In order to understand the Wu family "lean" as I do, would require at least a few years training under that system. But I will say that the "tantien rotation" is closely tied in to that system.That is where I will leave this for now.If I've answered the question, fine. If not, then perhaps we're on one of those topics that is best left for "agreeing to disagree".

And again, Polaris would be better at conveying Wu style theory to us. As he is one of Eddies own disciples, he will surely be able to give us a more inciteful answer. Certainly one couched in less double-speak than I am forced to use here.Sorry, but I'm getting a bit weary of being blasted across the moon for using wrong words or incorrect contexts when comparing these apples to those oranges.